The highest Lord only is Vahvanara, for that reason also that Smrzti ascribes to the highest Lord only a shape con¬ sisting of the threefold world, the fire constituting his mouth, the heavenly world his head, &c. So, for instance, in the following passage, ‘ He whose mouth is fire, whose head the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose feet the earth, whose eye the sun, whose ears the regions, reverence to him the Self of the world.’ The shape described here in Smrzti allows us to infer a.Sruti passage on which the Smrzti rests, and thus constitutes an inference, i.e. a sign indicatory of the word ‘ Vabvanara ’ denoting the highest Lord. For, although the quoted Smr/ti passage contains a glorification 1, 1 And as such might be said not to require a basis for its statements.
[34] still even a glorification in the form in which it there appears is not possible, unless it has a Vedic passage to rest on.— Other Smr/ti passages also may be quoted in connexion with this Sutra, so, for instance, the following one, ‘He whose head the wise declare to be the heavenly world, whose navel the ether, whose eyes sun and moon, whose ears the regions, and whose feet the earth, he is the inscrutable leader of all beings.’
26. If it be maintained that (Vabvanara is) not (the highest Lord) on account of the term (viz. VaLvd,- nara, having a settled different meaning), &c., and on account of his abiding within (which is a charac¬ teristic of the gastric fire); (we say) no, on account of the perception (of the highest Lord), being taught thus (viz. in the gastric fire), and on account of the impossibility (of the heavenly world, &c. being the head, &c. of the gastric fire), and because they (the Va^asaneyins) read of him (viz. the VaLvanara) as man (which term cannot apply to the gastric fire).
Here the following objection is raised.—VaLsvanara can¬ not be the highest Lord, on account of the term, &c., and on account of the abiding within. The term, viz. the term Vabvanara, cannot be applied to the highest Lord, because the settled use of language assigns to it a different sense. Thus, also, with regard to the term Agni (fire) in the pas¬ sage (.Sat. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11), ‘ He is the Agni VaLsvanara.’ The word ‘ &c/ (in the Sutra) hints at the fiction concerning the three sacred fires, the garhapatya being represented as the heart, and so on, of the VaLsv&nara Self ( Kh. Up. V, 18, % 1 ).—Moreover, the passage, ‘Therefore the first food which a man may take is in the place of homa ’ [Kh. Up. V, 19, 1), contains a glorification of (VaLsvanara) being the abode of the oblation to Pra^a 2. For these reasons we have to under- 1 Na fa garhapatyadihrfdayadita brahmawa^ sambhavini. Bhfimatf.
stand by VaLvanara the gastric fire.—Moreover, Scripture speaks of the VaLvdnara as abiding within, ‘ He knows him abiding within man; 5 which again applies to the gastric fire only.—With reference to the averment that on account of the specifications contained in the passage, ‘His head is Sute£*as,’ &c., VaLsvanara is to be explained as the highest Self, we (the purvapakshin) ask: How do you reach the decision that those specifications, although agreeing with both inter¬ pretations, must be assumed to refer to the highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?—Or else we may assume that the passage speaks of the elemental fire which abides within and without; for that that fire is also connected with the heavenly world, and so on, we understand from the mantra, ‘ He who with his light has extended himself over earth and heaven, the two halves of the world, and the atmo¬ sphere ’ (A?zg-veda Sa^h. X, 88, 3).—Or else the attribute of having the heavenly world, and so on, for its members may, on account of its power, be attributed to that divinity which has the elemental fire for its body.—Therefore VaLvanara is not the highest Lord.
To all this we reply as follows.—Your assertions are unfounded, ‘ because there is taught the perception in this manner.’ The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sutra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which Vaiivanara is the highest Lord.—Why?—On account of perception being taught in this manner, i. e. without the gastric fire being set aside. For the passages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord i n the gastric fire, analogously to such pas¬ sages as ‘ Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman ’ (Kh. Up. Ill, 18,1).—Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called VaLvanara for his limiting condition; ana¬ logously to such passages as ‘ He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light’ (Kh. Up. Ill, 14, % 1 ). If it were the aim of the passages about the Vau- 1 According to the former explanation the gastric fire is to be looked on as the outward manifestation (pratika) of the highest Lord; according to the latter as his limiting condition.
vanara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the passage ‘ His head is Sute^as/ &c. That also on the assumption of Vabvanara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sutra.—Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it is man. But, as a matter of fact, the Va^asaneyins speak of him—in their sacred text—as man, ‘ This Agni VaLvanara is man; he who knows this Agni VaLvanara as man-like, as abiding within man/ &c. ( 5 at. Bra. X, 6,1, 11). The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man.—Those who, in the latter part of the Sutra, read ‘ man-like ’ (purushavidham) instead of ‘ man 5 (purusham), wish to express the following meaning: If VaLvanara were assumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like. But the Va^asaneyins do speak of him as man-like, ‘ He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man. 5 —The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c., and is based on the earth; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c., and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper*).
27. For the same reasons (the VaLvanara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).
The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the passage ‘His head is Sute^as/ &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c., or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark: For the reasons 1 I. e. that he may be fancifully identified with the head and so on of the devout worshipper.
already stated VaLvanara is neither the divinity nor the element. For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect.—Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord. Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term c Self.’
28. (Taimini (declares that there is) no contradic¬ tion even on the assumption of a direct (worship of the highest Lord as VaLvanara).
Above (Sutra 26) it has been said that VaLvanara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circumstance that he is spoken of as abiding within—and so on.—The teacher Gaimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the assumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the passage about VaLvdnara to the direct worship of the highest Lord.—But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that VaLvanara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c. (Sti. 26)—To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that VaLvanara abides within. For the passage, ‘ He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,’ does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned byname before.—What then does it refer to?—It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin; the text therefore says, ‘ He knows him as man-like, 150 vedAnta-s6 tr as.
as abiding within man/ just as we say of a branch that it abides within the tree 1.—Or else we may adopt another interpretation and say that after the highest Self has been represented as having the likeness to man as a limiting condition, with regard to nature as well as to man, the passage last quoted (‘ He knows him as abiding within man ’) speaks of the same highest Self as the mere witness (sakshin; i. e. as the pure Self, non-related to the limiting conditions).—The consideration of the context having thus shown that the highest Self has to be resorted to for the interpretation of the passage, the term ‘ Vaijvanara ’ must denote the highest Self in some way or other. The word ‘Vhvanara’ is to be explained either as ‘ he who is all and man (i. e. the individual soul)/ or ‘ he to whom souls belong ’ (in so far as he is their maker or ruler), and thus denotes the highest Self which is the Self of all. And the form ‘VaLvanara 5 has the same meaning as ‘ VLvdnara/ the taddhita-suffix, by which the former word is derived from the latter, not changing the meaning; just as in the case of rakshasa (derived from rakshas), and vayasa (derived from vayas).—The word ‘Agni’ also may denote the highest Self if we adopt the etymology agni = agra/d, i. e. he who leads in front.—As the Garhapatya-fire finally, and as the abode of the oblation to breath the highest Self may be represented because it is the Self of all.
But, if it is assumed that Vahvanara denotes the highest Self, how can Scripture declare that he is measured by a span?—On the explanation of this difficulty we now enter.
29. On account of the manifestation, so A^marathya opines.
The circumstance of the highest Lord who transcends all measure being spoken of as measured by a span has for its reason * manifestation.’ The highest Lord manifests 1 Whereby we mean not that it is inside the tree, but that it forms a part of the tree.—The Vahvanara Self is identified with the different members of the body, and these members abide within, i. e. form parts of the body.
himself as measured by a span, i. e. he specially manifests himself for the benefit of his worshippers in some special places, such as the heart and the like, where he may be perceived. Hence, according to the opinion of the teacher Amiarathya, the scriptural passage which speaks of him who is measured by a span may refer to the highest Lord.
30. On account of remembrance; so Badari opines.
Or else the highest Lord may be called ‘ measured by a span ’ because he is remembered by means of the mind which is seated in the heart which is measured by a span. Similarly, barley-corns which are measured by means of prasthas are themselves called prasthas. It must be ad¬ mitted that barley-grains themselves have a certain size which is merely rendered manifest through their being connected with a prastha measure; while the highest Lord himself does not possess a size to be rendered manifest by his connexion with the heart. Still the remembrance (of the Lord by means of the mind) may be accepted as offering a certain foundation for the vSruti passage concern¬ ing him who is measured by a span.—Or else 1 the Sutra may be interpreted to mean that the Lord, although not really measured by a span, is to be remembered (meditated upon) as being of the measure of a span; whereby the passage is furnished with an appropriate sense.—Thus the passage about him who is measured by a span may, ac¬ cording to the opinion of the teacher Badari, be referred to the highest Lord, on account of remembrance.
31. On the ground of imaginative identification (the highest Lord may be called pradesamatra), Gaimini thinks; for thus (Scripture) declares.
Or else the passage about him who is measured by a span may be considered to rest on imaginative combin¬ ation.—Why?—Because the passage of the Va^asaneyi- 1 Parima^asya hrfdayadvararopitasya smaryama^e katham aropo vishayavishayitvena bhedad ity a^ankya vyakhyantavam aha prade^eti. Ananda GirL brahmazza which treats of the same topic identifies heaven, earth, and so on-—which are the members of Vauvanara viewed as the Self of the threefold world—with certain parts of the human frame, viz. the parts comprised between the upper part of the head and the chin, and thus declares the imaginative identity of Vaiiv&nara with something whose measure is a span. There we read, ‘The Gods indeed reached him, knowing him as measured by a span as it were. Now I will declare them (his members) to you so as to identify him (the Vauvinara) with that whose measure is a span; thus he said. Pointing to the upper part of the head he said: This is what stands above (i. e.
the heavenly world) as Vauv4nara (i. e. the head of Vaisvanara x ). Pointing to the eyes he said: This is he with good light (i. e. the sun) as Vauvanara (i. e. the eye of V.). Pointing to the nose he said: This is he who moves on manifold paths (i. e. the air) as Vai^vanara (i. e. the breath of V.). Pointing to the space (ether) within his mouth he said: This is the full one (i. e. the ether) as Vafcvanara. Pointing to the saliva within his mouth he said: This is wealth as Vafovanara (i. e. the water in the bladder of V.). Pointing to the chin he said: This is the base as Vauvanara (i. e. the feet of V.).’—Although in the Va^asaneyi-brahmazza the heaven is denoted as that which has the attribute of standing above and the sun as that which has the attribute of good light, while in the ATMndogya the heaven is spoken of as having good light and the sun as being multiform; still this difference does not interfere (with the unity of the vidya) 2, because both texts equally use the term ‘ measured by a span,’ and because all,yakh4s intimate the same.—The above explana¬ tion of the term ‘ measured by a span/ which rests on imaginative identification, the teacher (Gaimini considers the most appropriate one.
32. Moreover they (the Cabalas) speak of him 1 Atra sarvatra vahvanara^abdas tadangapara^. Go. An.
2 Which unity entitles us to use the passage from the *Sat. Brd. for the explanation of the passage from the Kh. Up.
(the highest Lord) in that (i.e. the interstice between the top of the head and the chin which is measured by a span).
Moreover the Cabalas speak in their text of the highest Lord as being in the interstice between the top of the head and the chin. 4 The unevolved infinite Self abides in the avimukta (i.e. the non-released soul). Where does that avimukta abide? It abides in the Varava and the Nasi, in the middle. What is that Varava, what is that Nasi? 5 The text thereupon etymologises the term Vara/za as that which wards off (varayati) all evil done by the senses, and the term Nasi as that which destroys (nlrayati) all evil done by the senses; and then continues, 4 And what is its place? —The place where the eyebrows and the nose join. That is the joining place of the heavenly world (represented by the upper part of the head) and of the other (i. e. the earthly world represented by the chin). 5 (Cabala Up. I.)—Thus it appears that the scriptural statement which ascribes to the highest Lord the measure of a span is appropriate. That the highest Lord is called abhivimana refers to his being the inward Self of all. As such he is directly measured, i. e. known by all animate beings. Or else the word may be explained as 4 he who is near everywhere —as the inward Self—and w T ho at the same time is measure¬ less 5 (as being infinite). Or else it may denote the highest Lord as him who, as the cause of the world, measures it out, i. e. creates it. By all this it is proved that VaLvanara is the highest Lord.
i54 Reverence to the highest Self!
i. The abode of heaven, earth, and so on (is Brahman), on account of the term ‘ own/ i. e. Self.
We read (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5), ‘ He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words! He is the bridge of the Immortal. 5 —Here the doubt arises whether the abode which is intimated by the state¬ ment of the heaven and so on being woven in it is the highest Brahman or something else.
The purvapakshin maintains that the abode is something else, on account of the expression, ‘ It is the bridge of the Immortal. 5 For, he says, it is known from every-day ex¬ perience that a bridge presupposes some further bank to which it leads, while it is impossible to assume something further beyond the highest Brahman, which in Scripture is called ‘endless, without a further shore 5 (B ri. Up. II, 4, 12). Now if the abode is supposed to be something different from Brahman, it must be supposed to be either the pradhana known from Smrz’ti, which, as being the (general) cause, may be called the (general) abode; or the air known from vSruti, of which it is said (B ri. Up. Ill, 7, 2, ‘ Air is that thread, O Gautama. By air as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world and all beings are strung together 5 ), that it supports all things; or else the embodied soul which, as being the enjoyer, may be considered as an abode with reference to the objects of its fruition.
Against this view we argue with the sutrakara as follows:— 6 Of the world consisting of heaven, earth, and so on, which in the quoted passage is spoken of as woven (upon some¬ thing), the highest Brahman must be the abode. 5 —Why?— On account of the word ‘ own, 5 i. e. on account of the word ‘ Self. 5 For we meet with the word ‘ Self 5 in the pas¬ sage, ‘ Know him alone as the Self.’ This term ‘Self 5 is thoroughly appropriate only if we understand the highest Self and not anything else.—(To propound another inter¬ pretation of the phrase 4 sva.rabdat 5 employed in the Sutra.) Sometimes also Brahman is spoken of in *Sruti as the general abode by its own terms (i.e. by terms properly designating Brahman), as, for instance ( Kh. Up. VI, 8, 4), 4 All these creatures, my dear, have their root in the being, their abode in the being, their rest in the being 1. 5 —(Or else we have to explain 4 sva.rabdena 5 as follows), In the passages preceding and following the passage under discussion Brahman is glorified with its own names 2; cp. Mu. Up. II, 1, 10, 4 The Person is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the highest Immortal, 5 and II, 2, 11, 4 That immortal Brahman is before, is behind, Brahman is to the right and left. 5 Here, on account of mention being made of an abode and that which abides, and on account of the co-ordination expressed in the passage, 4 Brahman is all 5 (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11), a suspicion might arise that Brah¬ man is of a manifold variegated nature, just as in the case of a tree consisting of different parts we distinguish branches, stem, and root. In order to remove this suspicion the text declares (in the passage under discussion), ‘Know him alone as the Self. 5 The sense of which is: The Self is not to be known as manifold, qualified by the universe of effects; you are rather to dissolve by true knowledge the universe of effects, which is the mere product of Nescience, and to know that one Self, which is the general abode, as uniform. Just as when somebody says, ‘Bring that on which Devadatta sits, 5 the person addressed brings the chair only (the abode of Devadatta), not Devadatta himself; so the pas¬ sage, 4 Know him alone as the Self, 5 teaches that the object to be known is the one uniform Self which constitutes the general abode. Similarly another scriptural passage re¬ proves him who believes in the unreal world of effects, 1 From passages of which nature we may infer that in the passage under discussion also the ‘ abode 5 is Brahman.
2 From which circumstance we may conclude that the passage under discussion also refers to Brahman.
‘ From death to death goes he who sees any difference here’ (Ka. Up. II, 4, 11). The statement of co-ordination made in the clause ‘ All is Brahman’ aims at dissolving (the wrong conception of the reality of) the world, and not in any way at intimating that Brahman is multiform in nature 1; for the uniformity (of Brahman’s nature) is expressly stated in other passages such as the following one, ‘ As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge’ (B ri. Up. IV, 5 > 13)-— For all these reasons the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is the highest Brahman.—Against the objection that on account of the text speaking of a ‘ bridge,’ and a bridge requiring a further bank, we have to understand by the abode of heaven and earth something different from Brahman, we remark that the word ‘bridge’ is meant to intimate only that that which is called a bridge supports, not that it has a further bank. We need not assume by any means that the bridge meant is like an ordinary bridge made of clay and wood. For as the word setu (bridge) is derived from the root si, which means ‘to bind,’ the idea of holding together, supporting is rather implied in it than the idea of being connected with something beyond (a further bank).
According to the opinion of another (commentator) the word ‘ bridge ’ does not glorify the abode of heaven, earth, &c., but rather the knowledge of the Self which is glorified in the preceding clause, ‘ Know him alone as the Self,’ and the abandonment of speech advised in the clause, ‘ leave off other words;’ to them, as being the means of obtaining immortality, the expression ‘the bridge of the immortal’ applies 2. On that account we have to set aside the assertion that, on account of the word ‘ bridge,’ something different from Brahman is to be understood by the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
1 Yat sarvam avidyaropitazrc tat sarva m paramarthato brahma na tu yad brahma tat sarvam ity artha^. Bhamatf.
2 So that the passage would have to be translated, ‘That, viz. knowledge, &c. is the bridge of the Immortal.’
2. And on account of its being designated as that to which the Released have to resort.
By the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, we have to understand the highest Brahman for that reason also that we find it denoted as that to which the Released have to resort.—The conception that the body and other things contained in the sphere of the Not-self are our Self, constitutes Nescience; from it there spring desires with regard to whatever promotes the well-being of the body and so on, and aversions with regard to whatever tends to injure it; there further arise fear and confusion when we observe anything threatening to destroy it. All this con¬ stitutes an endless series of the most manifold evils with which we all are acquainted. Regarding those on the other hand who have freed themselves from the stains of Nescience desire aversion and so on, it is said that they have to resort to that, viz. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. which forms the topic of discussion. For the text, after having said, £ The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is the higher and the lower ’ (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8), later on remarks, £ The wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great* (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 8). That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the released, is known from other scriptural passages, such as £ When all desires which once entered his heart are undone then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman 5 (B ru Up. IV, 4, 7). Of the pradhana and similar entities, on the other hand, it is not known from any source that they are to be resorted to by the released. Moreover, the text (in the passage, £ Know him alone as the Self and leave off other words ’) declares that the knowledge of the abode of heaven and earth, &c. is connected with the leaving off of all speech; a condition which, according to another scrip¬ tural passage, attaches to (the knowledge of) Brahman; cp.
Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21, £ Let a wise Br&hma;za, after he has dis¬ covered him, practise wisdom. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue/—For that reason also the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the highest Brahman.
3. Not (i. e. the abode of heaven, earth, &c. can¬ not be) that which is inferred, (i. e. the pradhana), on account of the terms not denoting it.
While there has been shown a special reason in favour of Brahman (being the abode), there is no such special reason in favour of anything else. Hence he (the sutrak&ra) says that that which is inferred, i. e. the pradhana assumed by the Solhkhya-smrzti, is not to be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.—Why?—On account of the terms not denoting it. For the sacred text does not contain any term intimating the non-intelligent pradhana, on the ground of which we might understand the latter to be the general cause or abode; while such terms as 4 he who perceives all and knows all’ (Mu. Up. 1,1, 9) intimate an intelligent being opposed to the pradhana in nature.—For the same reason the air also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on.
4. (Nor) also the individual soul (pra^abhrzt).
Although to the cognitional (individual) Self the qualities of Selfhood and intelligence do belong, still omniscience and similar qualities do not belong to it as its knowledge is limited by its adjuncts; thus the individual soul also cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., for the same reason, i. e. on account of the terms not denoting it.—Moreover, the attribute of forming the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, cannot properly be given to the individual soul because the latter is limited by certain adjuncts and therefore non-pervading (not omnipresent) 1. —The special enunciation (of the individual soul) is caused by what follows 2.—The individual soul is not to be 1 Bhogyasya bhoktr Aeshatvat tasyayatanatvam uktam a^ankyaha na keti, ^ivasyadrz'sh/advara dyubhvadinimittatvexpi na sakshat tadayatanatvam aupadhikatvenavibhutvad ity artha^. Ananda Giri.
2 It would not have been requisite to introduce a special Sutra accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. for the follow¬ ing reason also.
5. On account of the declaration of difference.
The passage ‘Know him alone as the Self’ moreover implies a declaration of difference, viz. of the difference of the object of knowledge and the knower. Here the indi¬ vidual soul as being that which is desirous of release is the knower, and consequently Brahman, which is denoted by the word ‘ self 5 and represented as the object of knowledge, is understood to be the abode of heaven, earth, and so on. —For the following reason also the individual soul cannot be accepted as the abode of heaven, earth, &c.
6. On account of the subject-matter.
The highest Self constitutes the subject-matter (of the entire chapter), as we see from the passage, ‘ Sir, what is that through which, when it is known, everything else becomes known? 5 (Mu. Up. 1,1, 3), in which the knowledge of everything is declared to be dependent on the knowledge of one thing. For all this (i.e. the entire world) becomes known if Brahman the Self of all is known, not if only the individual soul is known.—Another reason against the individual soul follows.
7. And on account of the two conditions of stand¬ ing and eating (of which the former is characteristic of the highest Lord, the latter of the individual soul).